If we do not reform our education system, we will be letting down future
generations of pupils, say Chris Skidmore and Neil Carmichael.

Back in 1976, the new Prime Minister James Callaghan pointedly asked of his Education Secretary whether examinations were rigorous enough, did mathematics and science receive sufficient attention and were the "three Rs" being properly taught. Today, business is still asking the same questions – which explains why fundamental reform to our examination system is necessary.

Today’sEducation Select Committee report on the government’s proposed reforms to examinations at 16 is clear that "significant improvements" are needed to qualifications, arguing that "it is important that public confidence in these qualifications is restored".

We must be clear: reform is not only necessary, it is essential if we are to ensure that pupils are equipped with the knowledge and skills for the twenty-first century.

The arguments for reform have already been made forcefully by business leaders such as Simon Walker, Director General of the Institute of Directors, who has stated: ‘We welcome Michael Gove’s new exam reforms. This announcement will undoubtedly help to shore up confidence in the British education system. Business leaders want a stronger curriculum and more rigorous exams, and these measures are welcome progress towards delivering that."

The Education Committee’s report regrettably chose not to reflect comments such as these, or those of organisations such as The Wellcome Trust who have stated that “we welcome the proposal to improve the quality and rigour of examinations at Key Stage 4. There is real potential to modernise the curricula with expert input and to ensure a continuous progression to A-levels and further qualifications.”

Opponents of educational reform cannot ignore the force of public opinion in demanding change. According to a YouGov poll taken in June 2012, 60 per cent of the public think it has got easier to get a good GCSE in recent years, compared to only six per cent who think it has got harder.

Forty-seven per cent of Labour voters think it has got easier to get a good GCSE in recent years, compared to only seven per cent who think it has got harder. And it's not just the public who have little confidence in the current system. According to the latest Ofqual survey, just 51 per cent of students in 2011 had confidence in the GCSE exam system.

Even the Labour party, after years of denial, now admit that grade inflation was a constant feature of a decade when GCSE results continued to soar. As Stephen Twigg himself has stated, "I absolutely acknowledge that there is grade inflation in the system."

At the same time, pupils taking more rigorous subjects plummeted. In 1997, 49.9 per cent of pupils entered GCSEs in English, maths, two sciences, a language and either history or geography – the core academic subjects which now make up the English Baccalaureate (EBacc).

This figure more than halved by 2010, with only 22 per cent of pupils sitting these subjects. Not forgetting also that after Labour announced their intention to remove the languages requirement for 14-16 year-olds, by 2010, 200,000 fewer 16 year-olds took a modern language GCSE.

This decline must be reversed. Already the EBacc is transforming the uptake of subjects that matter to universities and employers. An IPSOS-MORI survey of pupils who will take their GCSEs in 2014 suggests that the percentage of students taking the full EBacc will increase from 22 per cent in 2010 to 49 per cent by 2014.

Over the same period, the percentage of pupils taking GCSEs in History will go up from 31 per cent to 41 per cent; Geography will go up from 26 per cent to 36 per cent; any language will go up from 43 per cent to 54 per cent and Triple Science will go up from 16 to 34 per cent.

These aren’t just academic subjects. These are core subjects for which it is our duty to ensure that every pupil is required to learn. In England, students are only expected to achieve two academic qualifications – English and mathematics – at age 16. By contrast, the think tank Reform found that "other developed countries typically expect four or five as a minimum. Of the ten leading developed countries, eight require examinations in at least four academic subjects."

With the introduction of new qualifications to replace GCSEs, we have a once in a generation chance to not only restore confidence in the exam system, but to catch up with the rest of the world.

In particular, rebalancing the economy with a focus on engineering and manufacturing requires higher standards in the STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). Professor Allison Wolf and others have noted the need for a solid academic record for all pupils, including those interested in vocational qualifications, and universities are expressing interest in having a stronger role examination setting and shaping the content of courses, especially in sciences.

We are in a global race, in which the qualifications of the twentieth century will no longer equip us with the necessary skills and knowledge needed for the modern world. This means that we not only need to look outwards, to emulate the countries that are powering ahead, fuelled by a rigorous education system that will not accept second best.

We must recognise that if we do not reform our education system, we will be letting down future generations of pupils who will be competing in this modern, international world. This is why we need reform, and why it is wrong to bow down to the forces of educational conservatism.

Chris Skidmore MP and Neil Carmichael MP are members of the Education Select Committee